Jump to content

4 HARM stations, but only 2 Maverick stations?


QuiGon
 Share

Go to solution Solved by QuiGon,

Recommended Posts

Edit: I should note that the below is my own personal opinion.

 

It should be noted that 'carry' does not mean 'launch'.

 

We've had loadies here confirm it could definitely carry 4, but it could not use 4. The Edwards bird shows this.

 

If you had a flight of 4 F-16s going somewhere for an exercise and wanted 16 HARMs for them to use... you could... have them go pylons only, ship the harms by whatever the normal means are (air/road/ship). Have them carry 2, and ship the other 8.

 

Or you could just load them with 4, which they can carry but not use - but in ferrying you're not going to use them, so it doesnt matter.

 

Case in point, see attached screencap from a hornet video. It has a Litening pod on the outer wing pylon. If you look closely, the one next to it has it on the opposite side.

 

Being a former RAAF member myself I asked a friend who has extensive hornet experience if that was actually usable. He stated he'd never heard of or seen it being used from that station. More than likely they were ferrying to somewhere, and rather than box up the pod and send it back on a transport, they just carried it with them. The lugs are the same.

 

Later in the video you can see the same hornets with 3 tanks on, confirming they were most likely ferrying.

 

The real evidence that is required, IMO, is footage of it actually being fired from that station from anything other than a test vehicle.

 

I've read about the inboard maverick not being allowed on LAU-88 on the C/D (and i believe later block As) because their horizontal stabs are larger and the exhaust would damage them. Three mavericks were only allowed in 'war emergency'. It was possible with the A because of the smaller stabs.

 

I'd find it strange then that a forward firing rocket powered munition is allowed on 4 and 6 for the same reason. If HARM is allowed why not another AMRAAM? Why not Maverick (i've never seen one)... or rocket pods? If you're going to allow restrictions, then a restriction on the inboard LAU-88 for maverick should be considered too... this was done in later versions of Falcon 4.0 for example, in certain historical periods, IIRC.

95841170_hornettpod.thumb.jpg.c9069671c1a1ed9b5151861f8af7be66.jpg


Edited by Ironwulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read about the inboard maverick not being allowed on TERs on the C/D (and i believe later block As) because their horizontal stabs are larger and the exhaust would damage them. Three mavericks were only allowed in 'war emergency'. It was possible with the A because of the smaller stabs.

 

I'd find it strange then that a forward firing rocket powered munition is allowed on 4 and 6 for the same reason. If HARM is allowed why not another AMRAAM? Why not Maverick (i've never seen one)... or rocket pods? If you're going to allow restrictions, then a restriction on the inboard TER for maverick should be considered too.

 

Not to nit-pick, but a TER is a Triple Ejector Rack for bombs and the LAU-88 is the triple rail launcher for the AGM-65, sorry I had to :music_whistling::D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASUS ROG STRIX B350F with AMD RYZEN 5 2600 OC @ 4.0Ghz, 32GB DDR4 2400, ASUS ROG STRIX 5700XT, Oculus Rift S, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS

 

 

Experience? A little...

DCS: A-10C, F-14A/B, F/A-18C & F-16C

USAF: A-10, F-16 & B-52

LM: F-22, C-130J & C-5M

 

Formally Known As: wpnssgt (google it :smilewink: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had loadies here confirm it could definitely carry 4, but it could not use 4

 

I don't doubt the experience of these people but I don't think ED can just trust anyone, unless they're are being paid as a consultant. This would just open up the doors for abuse otherwise. Also, are all F-16's maintained the same, can one person's experience speak to all the different squadrons and their needs?

 

Case in point, see attached screencap from a hornet video.

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational just trying to learn, but Hornet != Viper? Do they have the same subsystems/wiring? I guess I don't understand why evidence from a Hornet would contribute something here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the experience of these people but I don't think ED can just trust anyone, unless they're are being paid as a consultant. This would just open up the doors for abuse otherwise. Also, are all F-16's maintained the same, can one person's experience speak to all the different squadrons and their needs?

 

In the United States yes. The jets under the hood are the same per block. The jets, crews, maintainers, supply system for each block is standardized so that equipment, personnel, experience, training and knowledge is completely interchangeable. Different squadrons will focus on different mission roles, but the jets themselves are the same.

 

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational just trying to learn, but Hornet != Viper? Do they have the same subsystems/wiring? I guess I don't understand why evidence from a Hornet would contribute something here.

 

He was trying to explain that sometimes it is economical for an aircraft to ferry equipment on its weapon stations rather than going through the complexities of shipping that equipment by other means.

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the experience of these people but I don't think ED can just trust anyone, unless they're are being paid as a consultant. This would just open up the doors for abuse otherwise. Also, are all F-16's maintained the same, can one person's experience speak to all the different squadrons and their needs?

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational just trying to learn, but Hornet != Viper? Do they have the same subsystems/wiring? I guess I don't understand why evidence from a Hornet would contribute something here.

 

 

In the United States yes. The jets under the hood are the same per block. The jets, crews, maintainers, supply system for each block is standardized so that equipment, personnel, experience, training and knowledge is completely interchangeable. Different squadrons will focus on different mission roles, but the jets themselves are the same.

 

 

 

He was trying to explain that sometimes it is economical for an aircraft to ferry equipment on its weapon stations rather than going through the complexities of shipping that equipment by other means.

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to nit-pick, but a TER is a Triple Ejector Rack for bombs and the LAU-88 is the triple rail launcher for the AGM-65, sorry I had to :music_whistling::D

 

Fixed. I wrote that at 2:20am local time. I was a little tired.


Edited by Ironwulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was trying to explain that sometimes it is economical for an aircraft to ferry equipment on its weapon stations rather than going through the complexities of shipping that equipment by other means.

 

 

So...pardon the dumb question. If loading up to ferry equipment, do they bother to hook it up? Can you have an AGM-88 on the rails as just dead weight, then tell the jet that weight is there by other means for the FCS to whip out the slide rule and do whatever it does?

 

 

And a follow up question, does it matter that the dead weight can't be jettisoned in an emergency situation if it's on a rail that can't fire it?

 

 

This is all nit-pick operations stuff, I'm just curious how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the SMS info would be trivial. It's also possible for LAU-118 to be jettisonable to have non-launch jettison. And it wouldn't need full operational support to have S-J launch jettison. I have no idea if missile launch of any stripe (even S-J) on 4/6 is even a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...pardon the dumb question. If loading up to ferry equipment, do they bother to hook it up? Can you have an AGM-88 on the rails as just dead weight, then tell the jet that weight is there by other means for the FCS to whip out the slide rule and do whatever it does?

 

 

And a follow up question, does it matter that the dead weight can't be jettisoned in an emergency situation if it's on a rail that can't fire it?

 

 

This is all nit-pick operations stuff, I'm just curious how it works.

 

 

The FLCS ("Flickis") doesn't need to be told specifically what is on the stations. It will adjust the aircraft accordingly to the pilots "request." There is the CAT I and CAT III switch, but that's a different topic. If you load the F-16 with munitions and leave the inventory page blank the jet will be just fine. The FLCS doesn't check for individual stores on the aircraft.

 

Jettison and weapons release are handled by two different systems. You can have jettison ability without the missile or any other smart weapon being connected. Jettison control in this case comes from the WWP (Wing Weapons Pylon). This is the large pylon that all a2g munitions or adapters hang from under the wing on 3,4,6,7. This pylon cannot be jettisoned, but anything it's holding onto can be. This can be disabled, as in the case with travel pods. The WWP holds onto stores via mechanical hooks and the hooks are independent from any 1760 or weapon communication cables. If an item is heavy enough to become a factor in an emergency then the station will be what is called "carted." This will give a particular station jettison and release functions. Yes the pilot will have the option to save the aircraft with emergency jettison if the store is heavy enough to make a difference.

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FLCS ("Flickis") doesn't need to be told specifically what is on the stations. It will adjust the aircraft accordingly to the pilots "request." There is the CAT I and CAT III switch, but that's a different topic. If you load the F-16 with munitions and leave the inventory page blank the jet will be just fine. The FLCS doesn't check for individual stores on the aircraft.

 

Jettison and weapons release are handled by two different systems. You can have jettison ability without the missile or any other smart weapon being connected. Jettison control in this case comes from the WWP (Wing Weapons Pylon). This is the large pylon that all a2g munitions or adapters hang from under the wing on 3,4,6,7. This pylon cannot be jettisoned, but anything it's holding onto can be. This can be disabled, as in the case with travel pods. The WWP holds onto stores via mechanical hooks and the hooks are independent from any 1760 or weapon communication cables. If an item is heavy enough to become a factor in an emergency then the station will be what is called "carted." This will give a particular station jettison and release functions. Yes the pilot will have the option to save the aircraft with emergency jettison if the store is heavy enough to make a difference.

 

 

Very, very cool stuff. Thanks!

 

 

<completely off topic, but the horse is already dead, so...>

 

 

All the threads around here with real people who've done the real job starts to explain where all those thousands of dollars per hour to operate these machines go, and why it takes so many people to maintain an aircraft. You 'know' it, but it makes a lot more sense now.

 

 

 

As for 4 HARMs...I just use those realistic red parachutes with weapon power-ups to get more missiles in flight. If it wasn't for the purple parachutes with gas I'd be in trouble... :thumbup: :pilotfly: :joystick:

 

 

<we now return you to your regularly scheduled equine carcass beating>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • Solution
On 10/1/2020 at 12:21 PM, QuiGon said:

Unfortunately, DCS does not offer enough control. It is not possible in multiplayer for mission makers and/or admins to restrict weapons to certain pylons to enforce realistic (= technical possible) loadouts on a server. :noexpression:

 

On 10/6/2020 at 9:18 PM, QuiGon said:

Then at least give mission makers or server admins the ability to restrict loadouts please.

 

 

Thanks ED!

  • Like 4

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through this thread, but i'm still unsure why there can be HARM, but not Maverick on 4/6.

I don't want to start another controvery, but simply understand the technical reasons. If "our" module now has the option for additional wiring, why does that enable HARM but not Mavericks?

Thanks.

  • Like 1

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, twistking said:

I've read through this thread, but i'm still unsure why there can be HARM, but not Maverick on 4/6.

I don't want to start another controvery, but simply understand the technical reasons. If "our" module now has the option for additional wiring, why does that enable HARM but not Mavericks?

Thanks.

Let's wait and see what the new weapon restriction system allows. To me the UI looks like we'll be able to add what ever we want on certain stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ColinM9991 said:

Let's wait and see what the new weapon restriction system allows. To me the UI looks like we'll be able to add what ever we want on certain stations.

 

nope, pretty sure you can't. the UI as presented in the pic only makes sense in a way that lets you click on a green checkmark to deactivate the option. so it will only present you options that are in the realms of possibility and let you decide to narrow it down to strict realism (and whatever that means to you).

 

but that doesn't even matter to me. i'm wondering if - in reality - a viper with wiring for HARM could also interface mavericks on the same station.

 

@BIGNEWY can you clarify this? i simply assume that mavericks on 4/6 will not be possible in DCS because they were never tested and cleared, but that they - in reality - could theoretically interface on a technical level (given that the stations are wired for HARM)? again, not trying to start mavGate, just interested in the technical nuances behind all this...

thank you!


Edited by twistking
  • Like 1

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twistking said:

@BIGNEWY can you clarify this? i simply assume that mavericks on 4/6 will not be possible in DCS because they were never tested and cleared, but that they - in reality - could theoretically interface on a technical level (given that the stations are wired for HARM)? again, not trying to start mavGate, just interested in the technical nuances behind all this...

thank you!

 

Yeah, I'm wondering the same, as the wiring needed for the HARMs is the same that is needed for the Mavs AFAIK.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Yeah, I'm wondering the same, as the wiring needed for the HARMs is the same that is needed for the Mavs AFAIK.

 

 

of course there is also the question of software system integration and the question of this loadout actually being tested and cleared. so there are many good reasons to absolutely not have mavs or anything smart on 4/6 (i stress that to not start another forum war).

i am just curious. i am not aware of any pictures or reports of f-16c carrying anything smart on 4/6 (apart from the rare cases of HARM for some operators), so my guess would be, that only HARM, dumb ordnance and fuel tanks are technically possible for an f-16c (F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated in the 2007 time frame.).


Edited by twistking

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wiring for anything on 4/6, just dumb bombs and fuel. HARMs were aerodynamically cleared probably in anticipation of employment but USAF never went ahead. Those not understanding this simple fact have done so because they have decided not to understand it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twistking said:

of course there is also the question of software system integration and the question of this loadout actually being tested and cleared. so there are many good reasons to absolutely not have mavs or anything smart on 4/6 (i stress that to not start another forum war).

i am just curious.

 

Yeah, I understand that there are many other obstacles than just the wiring, but just like you I'm curious about the technical implications :smile:

 

10 minutes ago, Frederf said:

No wiring for anything on 4/6, just dumb bombs and fuel. HARMs were aerodynamically cleared probably in anticipation of employment but USAF never went ahead. Those not understanding this simple fact have done so because they have decided not to understand it.

 

Have you not seen the latest mini update for the DCS Viper? Some USAF units apparently have them wired, while others have not.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twistking said:

 

of course there is also the question of software system integration and the question of this loadout actually being tested and cleared. so there are many good reasons to absolutely not have mavs or anything smart on 4/6 (i stress that to not start another forum war).

i am just curious. i am not aware of any pictures or reports of f-16c carrying anything smart on 4/6 (apart from the rare cases of HARM for some operators), so my guess would be, that only HARM, dumb ordnance and fuel tanks are technically possible for an f-16c (F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated in the 2007 time frame.).

 

 

Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me. 

 

The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.

 

thank you

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me. 

 

The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.

 

thank you

 

 

no no, this was just my curiosity speaking.

  • Like 3

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember where I read this, but IIRC mavericks have some kind of plug on the back that gets blown off and away by the rocket motor when launching, and this debris can hit the horizontal stab on the F-16 if fired from stations 4/6.  If the HARM is cleared for 4/6 then I would guess it doesn't have such a debris issue? Don't quote me on this, I'm a layman here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Xavven said:

I don't remember where I read this, but IIRC mavericks have some kind of plug on the back that gets blown off and away by the rocket motor when launching, and this debris can hit the horizontal stab on the F-16 if fired from stations 4/6.  If the HARM is cleared for 4/6 then I would guess it doesn't have such a debris issue? Don't quote me on this, I'm a layman here.

Correct, thats why they dont carry HARMs there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...